Editing Max Weber (section)

===The state, politics, and government===
{{See also|Max Weber and German politics}}

In [[political sociology]], one of Weber's most influential contributions is his lecture "[[Politics as a Vocation]]", in which he defined the [[State (polity)|state]] as an entity that was "[[Monopoly on violence|based on the legitimate use of force]]".{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2004|1p=34|2a1=Warner|2y=1991|2pp=9–10|3a1=Palonen|3y=2011|3pp=104–105}} Accordingly, Weber proposed that politics is the sharing of state power between various groups, whereas political leaders were those who wielded this power.{{sfn|Warner|1991|pp=9–10}} He divided action into the oppositional {{Lang|de|[[Ethic of ultimate ends|gesinnungsethik]]}} and ''{{Interlanguage link|verantwortungsethik|de}}'' (the "ethic of ultimate ends" and the "ethic of responsibility").{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2004|1p=xli|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2pp=121–123|3a1=Marlin|3y=2002|3pp=155}} An adherent of the {{Lang|de|verantwortungsethik}} justified their actions based on their consequences. Meanwhile, an adherent of the {{Lang|de|gesinnungsethik}} justified their actions based on their ideals.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=515–516|2a1=Marlin|2y=2002|2pp=155–156|3a1=Swedberg|3a2=Agevall|3y=2016|3pp=121–123}} While Weber thought that both of them would ideally be present in a politician, he associated them with different types of people and mindsets. These different types of people and mindsets reflected the [[Pacifism in Germany|pacifists]] and those who wanted to reverse Germany's defeat in the First World War, respectively.{{sfnm|1a1=Radkau|1y=2009|1pp=515–516|2a1=Marlin|2y=2002|2pp=155–156}}

Weber distinguished three [[ideal type]]s of legitimate authority:{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2004|1p=34|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=294–296|3a1=Macionis|3y=2012|3p=88}}
# [[Charismatic authority]] – [[family|Familial]] and [[religion in politics|religious]]
# [[Traditional authority]] – [[Patriarchy]], [[patrimonialism]], [[feudalism]]
# [[Rational-legal authority]] – Modern law and state, [[bureaucracy]]

In his view, all historical relationships between rulers and ruled contained these elements, which could be analysed on the basis of this [[tripartite classification of authority]].{{sfnm|1a1=Bendix|1a2=Roth|1y=1977|1p=296|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2p=88}} Charismatic authority was held by extraordinary figures and was unstable, as it relied on the charismatic figure's success and resisted institutionalisation.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=34–35|2a1=Ritzer|2y=2009|2pp=37–41}} It was forced to be routinised into more structured forms of authority. An administrative structure would be formed by the charismatic leader's followers.{{sfnm|1a1=Ritzer|1y=2009|1pp=37–41|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2pp=34–35}} In an ideal type of traditional rule, sufficient resistance to a ruler led to a "traditional revolution".{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|pp=303–305}} Traditional authority was based on loyalty to preestablished traditions and those who were placed into authority as a result of those traditions.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=352–353|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=294–295}} Rational-legal authority relied on bureaucracy and belief in both the legality of the society's rules and the legitimacy of those who were placed into power as a result of those rules.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=187–188|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2p=294}} Unlike the other types of authority, it gradually developed. That was the result of legal systems ability to exist without charismatic individuals or traditions.{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|pp=387–388}}

====Bureaucracy====
{{See also|Bureaucracy}}

Weber's commentary on societal bureaucratisation is one of the most prominent parts of his work.{{sfn|Swedberg|Agevall|2016|p=20}} According to him, bureaucracy was the most efficient method of societal organisation and the most formally rational system. It was necessary for modern society to function and would also be difficult to destroy.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=20–21|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2p=430}} Bureaucratic officials felt superior to non-bureaucrats, had a strong sense of duty, and had fixed salaries that caused them to be disinclined to pursue monetary acquisition. Bureaucracy was less likely to be found among elected officials.{{sfn|Swedberg|Agevall|2016|p=20}} Furthermore, Bureaucracy's treatment of all people without regard for individuals suited capitalism well.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1p=21|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=426–427}} It was also a requirement for both modern capitalism and modern socialism to exist.{{sfn|Swedberg|Agevall|2016|p=21}} This depersonalisation related to its increased efficiency. Bureaucrats could not openly make decisions arbitrarily or base them on personal favours.{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977|pp=427–428}} As the most efficient and rational way of organising, bureaucratisation was the key part of rational-legal authority. Furthermore, he saw it as the key process in the ongoing rationalisation of Western society.{{sfnm|1a1=Ritzer|1y=2009|1pp=38–42|2a1=Swedberg|2a2=Agevall|2y=2016|2pp=18–21}}

Weber listed six characteristics of an ideal type of bureaucracy:{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1p=20|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2p=424|3a1=Allan|3y=2005|3pp=173–174}}
# It was in a fixed area that was governed by rules
# Bureaucracies were hierarchical
# Its actions were based on written documents
# Expert training was required
# Bureaucrats were completely devoted to their work
# The system relied on basic rules that were learnable

The development of [[information and communications technology|communication]] and transportation technologies made more efficient administration possible and popularly requested. Meanwhile, the [[democratisation]] and rationalisation of culture resulted in demands that the new system treat everyone equally.{{sfn|Allan|2005|pp=172–173}} Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy was characterised by hierarchical organisation, delineated lines of authority in a fixed area of activity, action taken on the basis of written rules, bureaucratic officials needing expert training, rules being implemented neutrally, and career advancement depending on technical qualifications judged by organisations.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=20–21|2a1=Allan|2y=2005|2pp=173–174|3a1=Bendix|3a2=Roth|3y=1977|3p=424}} While arguing that bureaucracy was the most efficient form of organisation and was indispensable for the modern state, Weber was also critical of it. In his view, an inescapable bureaucratisation of society would happen in the future. He also thought that a hypothetical victory of socialism over capitalism would have not been able to prevent that.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=21–22|2a1=Ritzer|2y=2005|2p=55}} Economic and political organisations needed entrepreneurs and politicians in order to counteract bureaucrats. Otherwise, they would be stifled by bureaucracy.{{sfn|Swedberg|Agevall|2016|p=21}}

====Social stratification====
{{Main|Three-component theory of stratification}}

Weber also formulated a three-component theory of stratification that contained the conceptually distinct elements of social class, [[social status]], and political party.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2015b|1pp=37–40|2a1=Parkin|2y=2013|2p=90}} This distinction was most clearly described in his essay "The Distribution of Power Within the {{Lang|de|Gemeinschaft}}: Classes, {{Lang|de|Stände}}, Parties", which was first published in his book ''Economy and Society''.{{sfn|Weber|2015b|pp=37–40}} Status served as one of the central ways in which people were ranked in society. As part of it, issues of honour and prestige were important.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2015b|1pp=37–40|2a1=Bendix|2a2=Roth|2y=1977|2pp=85–87|3a1=Parkin|3y=2013|3pp=96–97}} With regards to class, the theory placed heavy emphasis on [[class conflict]] and [[private property]] as having been key to its definition.{{sfn|Parkin|2013|pp=91–96}} While Weber drew upon Marx's interpretation of class conflict in his definition of class, he did not see it as having defined all social relations and stratification.{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2015b|1pp=37–58|2a1=Parkin|2y=2013|2pp=92–93, 98|3a1=Bendix|3a2=Roth|3y=1977|3pp=85–87}} Political parties were not given as much attention by Weber as the other two components were, as he thought that they were not particularly effectual in their actions. Their purpose was to seek power to benefit their members materially or ideologically.{{sfnm|1a1=Parkin|1y=2013|1pp=104–108|2a1=Weber|2y=2015b|2pp=37–40|3a1=Swedberg|3a2=Agevall|3y=2016|3p=246}}

The three components of Weber's theory were:{{sfnm|1a1=Weber|1y=2015b|1pp=37–40|2a1=Parkin|2y=2013|2p=90}}
# Social class – Based on an economically determined relationship with the market
# Status ({{Langx|de|Stand|label=none}}) – Based on non-economic qualities such as honour and prestige
# Party – Affiliations in the political domain

This conceptualisation emerged from Weber's study of farm labour and the stock exchange, as he found social relationships that were unexplainable through economic class alone. The [[Junker (Prussia)|Junker]]s had social rules regarding marriage between different social levels and farm labourers had a strong sense of independence, neither of which was economically based.{{sfn|Bendix|Roth|1977}} Weber maintained a sharp distinction between the terms "status" and "class", although non-scholars tend to use them interchangeably in casual use.{{sfnm|1a1=Waters|1a2=Waters|1y=2016|1pp=1–2|2a1=Parkin|2y=2013|2pp=96–97}} Status and its focus on honour emerged from the {{Lang|de|[[Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft|Gemeinschaft]]}}, which denoted the part of society where loyalty originated from. Class emerged from the {{Lang|de|Gesellschaft}}, a subdivision of the {{Lang|de|Gemeinschaft}} that included rationally driven markets and legal organisation. Parties emerged from a combination of the two.{{sfn|Waters|Waters|2016|pp=1–2}} Weber interpreted [[life chances]], the opportunities to improve one's life, as having been a definitional aspect of class. It related to the differences in access to opportunities that different people might have had in their lives.{{sfnm|1a1=Swedberg|1a2=Agevall|1y=2016|1pp=41–42, 192|2a1=Waters|2a2=Waters|2y=2016|2pp=2–3}} The relationship between status and class was not straightforward. One of them could lead to the other, but an individual or group could have success in one but not the other.{{sfn|Parkin|2013|pp=104–108}}